Skip to main content

About your Search

20130202
20130202
STATION
FOXNEWS 13
MSNBC 12
MSNBCW 12
CSPAN 6
FBC 6
KQED (PBS) 5
WETA 5
CSPAN2 4
KRCB (PBS) 3
CNN 2
CNNW 2
KQEH (PBS) 2
KCSM (PBS) 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
LINKTV 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 90
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 91 (some duplicates have been removed)
on whether she has left america's foreign policy in stronger or weaker position. most think the future lies with china than the u.s. it's not all mrs. clinton's fault. but the fact is we just don't have the influence we used to have around the world from syria to mali, we have led from behind, so in effect the former secretary of state has helped manage our decline in what looks increasingly like a post american world. and that's the memo. now on to the top story. another view on this, joining us now from new york, fox news contributor julie ragenski and former advisor to frank lautenberg and president rosenberg a center left think tank and campaign advisor to president clinton. all right, simon, tell me, where did i go wrong there on judging mrs. clinton? highly intelligent, global celebrity. >> yep. >> incredible run from first lady to senator to secretary. why was this a great tenure as secretary of state? >> first of all agrow agree with the negative characterization. i think we are safer today in the world than when barack obama took office. i think there have within two central legaci
what we call economic statecraft to be a central pillar of our foreign policy you had to talk outomen and girls and so i've tried to do that. >> restrictions on women's economic participation are costing us massive amounts of economic growth and income in every region of the world. >> this work, ensuring that women are equal partners, as they should be, and are free to realize their own god-given potential, was one of the great pieces of unfinished business of the 21st century. with this equal futures partnership, we are taking an important step toward trying to finish that business. through this initiative, governments from around the world are making concrete commitments to support women in two key areas -- political participation and economic opportunity. >> have you gotten any guarantee from the president that that will be -- your work will continue under secretary kerry? >> yes. and under the president, i think the president has made very clear that this is a priority for the obama administration. senator kerry did some very gd work as a member and chair of the senate foreign rel
and girls, the rights and roles of women and girls a central focus of american foreign policy. and i didn't do it because it was a nice thing to do or it was some pet project of mine. i did it because the evidence is overwhelming. countries that deny political and social rights to women and girls are more unstable, more likely to breed extremism, more likely to threaten the united states. countries that deny economic opportunities to women and girls, rooted in education and business and investment are not going to be as prosperous as they might otherwise be. so it became clear that if i was going to be traveling around talking about diplomacy and development, urging changes in economic structures, introducing what we call economic statecraft to be a central pillar of our foreign policy you had to talk about women and girls and so i've tried to do that. >> restrictions on women's economic participation are costing us massive amounts of economic growth and income in every region of the world. >> this work, ensuring that women are equal partners, as they should be, and are free to realize th
the speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam. if it's carried out, i will resist it. in march 2008 you said, quote, here the term "quagmire" could apply. >> what are these? the full bright hearings? i lived through them? this is kind of like a 1970s movie where you go back into the past where it never even happened. why is he fighting with him about vietnam. >> it's interesting. he's fighting with him over iraq but it seems to be vietnam. he seems to be mad that hagel took issue with him about iraq and compared it to vietnam being the big blunder, which, of course, hagel and mccain both served in. when mccain talks about iraq, he only wants to talk about it from the surge on. it's as if everything before that didn't happen and didn't count and we ask still debate whether it worked or not but the big decision is whether it was as big as vietnam. and he didn't want to have that argument. >> he dug into his ankle here and he wouldn't let go. let's listen again. back again to the old war. >> were you co
it to marriages or affairs, but the fact that they'd been side by side on a lot of foreign policy stuff 10 and 20 years ago and then had a break over the war in iraq and then chuck hagel didn't support john mccain when he was running for president. gwen: he did the first time but not the second time. >> right, when he was actually a candidate. gwen: the actual nominee. >> and then finally the fact that john mccain believes very deeply in his own positions and wanted to prove himself right and hagel wrong and thought he had him on the surge. all of that. >> so it was great theater. as gwen said, hagel got beaten up. is he going to get confirmed? >> yes. and it is bizarre in a that she knows probably the worst confirmation hearing performance that any of us can remember of any nominee -- certainly for a cabinet position. supreme court nominations are a little different. and it all comes down to there are 55 democrats. none of those democrats have said they will vote against him. ok. one republican, thad cochran of mississippi has said he will vote for hagel. that makes him the unluckiest republican
on the grill with regard to foreign policy. they know what those people stand for. it is striking that the questions were softball. it was a love fest. i don't have any question about that. i will say this. news management in washington is do for everybody. i think back with mike with president reagan and the idea that they are not going to get answers to certain questions, with politicians, that is what they want. >> jon: we know you served as press spokesman, would 60 minutes have done that kind of interview with any of your bosses? >> no way. here is the missed opportunity. when you have the president of united states and secretary of state you have to corner them. you have to ask them about iran and negotiations and syria and what we're doing or not doing. why aren't we helping france in mali. the white house wouldn't be able to say, state department would give you more details or the state department will say that policy decision has to be made by the white house. that is the reason why political reporters shouldn't be reporting on foreign policy. >> jon: then the interview w
foreign policy blunder since vietnam? correct or incorrect? yes or no? are you going to answer the question? the question is, where you're right or wrong? that is a pretty straightforward question. i would like for you to answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate. >> i am not going to give you a yes or no answer -- >> hagel finally gave the answer on the surge that he wanted to give. >> i saw the consequences and suffering and horror of war, so i did question a surge. will this be worth the sacrifice? we lost almost 1200 american during that period was it required, necessary? >> how much of that exchange was political, how much was personal, and how much was related to the defense policy? >> 92, 11, 13. a lot of it was personal. one could not watch those hearings without feeling there were a lot of personal grudges but, even vendettas, being settled. >> center cornyn of texas says he cannot support a nominee for defense secretary who thinks we should be tougher on israel and more lenient on iran. is that a fair characterization of chuck hagel? >
. >> that's only if you think 80,000 people dead is not ugly. yes, sir. adding a mac >> foreign-policy and especially security systems. this is another area where congress really has a role to play. the administration is basically decided that mohamed morsi at egypt is the new mubarak. the guy in the seat we will now help. it's completely indifferent to what our aid program should look like and what the desired outcome and egypt should be. the only thing they appear to be interested in is the continuation of the israeli egyptian camp david accords, which are obviously of great interest, but not really the only thing they should animate us and we talk about the largest country in the middle east. when i thought we were delivering fighter jets to the egyptian military, i just asked myself, what message does this send? the rule should be not the foreign aid is bad and not that foreign aid is good and not that military assistance is good or bad, it is the u.s. taxpayer dollar used to further u.s. tax your interest and every time a new government comes into power, we should take that aid do
the foreign policy and the united states by a descanting the state of israel. to be totally honest with you, i am very disappointed. liz: one of neil's favorite and frequent guest and said he was grateful for every day of his life. >> diane 85 years old whenever by calls me i am ready. >> i never heard somebody talking much about dying. >> ion 85. honestly i am a very good health. i am enjoying my life. i have no complaints. >> that was a bombshell. >> but americanamerican s are afraid lou: good evening, everybody. the dow jones industrials tonight above 14,000 for the first time since october of 2007. it just 155 points from its all-time high. the s&p regaining the 1500 level, the labor department today reporting 157,000 jobs were created last month, almost 170,000 people, however, dropped out of the workforce, despite all of that. the national unemployment rate rose one-tenth of a percentage. it now stands at 7.9. eight and a half million people have dropped out of the work force since president obama took office. the developments overseas tonight. a suicide bomber attack. the u.s. embassy i
, there seem to be two approaches to foreign policy in the twenty-first century. one of the neo conservatives which have great power in this administration. check name names which i will not do. >> i do in this book. >> the new conservative ideological approach to foreign policy seems to be prevalent now as opposed to the traditional national interest pragmatic approach or is there some other approach? what do you see in the twenty-first century? >> i see a policy regardless who the president is of clear national interest and a policy must be for any nation whether it is the russians or the chinese, all nations, all individuals respond in their own self-interest, nothing wrong with that. that is predictable. the policy of our country, foreign policy, all the instruments of power it that you use to frame a policy must be driven with some higher purpose. i mentioned purpose, we lost purpose. we have been about ricocheting crisis to crisis. there's no strategic thinking, hasn't been strategic thinking for a long time in our foreign policy. it is the point i keep making. so does dick lugar who is
by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam if it is carried out, i will resist it." you continued on and on talking about what a disaster the search would be, even to the point where it was clear the search was succeeding. in march 2008, you said, "the term " quagmire could apply. even as late as august 29, 2011 , in an interview with the financial times, you said, "i disagree with president obama and his decision to surge in iraq as i did with president bush on the surge in iraq ." do you stand by those comments, senator hagel? >> i stand by them because i made them. >> were you correct in your assessment? >> i would defer to the judgment of history. >> were you write are wrong about the search? >> i will explain why i've made those comments. >> i want to know whether you are right or wrong. i expect a direct answer. >> it we reviewed the record -- >> please answer the question -- were you correct or incorrect when you said that the search would be most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? correct o
office in 2009. for more now on this attack, the president's foreign policy, i'm joined by pulitzer prize-winning journalist of fox news contributor, judith miller, fox news middle eastern terrorism analyst. let me begin with you. this attack on -- this sneak attack during the secretary's tenure is kind of an art of vice, but the reality is that we still have enemies who are pursuing their interests, even as we deny the force, the power, and the, if you will, the ubiquity of those forces. >> absolutely. i mean, the denial of the kind of need to continue the war and terror in this administration is really striking. hillary clinton wonders out, says farewell to her troops, takes a swipe at her critics and the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee has to point out, by the way, this calls for a sweeping review of the security of our diplomatic facilities, and she is never asked about it, does not have to respond to it. she is really amazingly adept at dodging hard questions. lou: adept, immune, inoculated, teflon, if you will. this secretary of state, despite the miles logged, almos
a favorable opinion of her. it's an open question whether her tenure includes a standout foreign policy achievement. still unresolved issues include iran's nuclear program, the lack of a middle east peace process, and the raging war in syria. clinton made her final appearance on capitol hill nearly two weeks ago to testify about september's attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. it claimed the lives of the u.s. ambassador and three other americans. she took aim at senate republicans who accused the obama administration of deceiving the nation about what happened. >> the fact is we had four dead americans. was it because of a protest? or was it because guys out for a walk one night who decided they would go kill some americans? what difference, at this point, does it make? >> suarez: president obama, gave her high praise in a joint interview sunday with cbs's "60 minutes." >> i think hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we've had. it has been a great collaboration over the last four years. ( cheers and applause ) >> suarez: clinton said her immediate go
dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam. if it's carried out, i will resist it. in march 2008 you said, quote, here the term quagmire could apply. >> what are these, the fulbright hearings all over again? i lived through them. and this guy is going back into some "last year at marienbad" kind of weird 1970s movie where you go back into the past that never even happened. why is he fighting hagel over vietnam? >> well, it's interesting because he's ostensibly fighting with him over iraq, but it immediately becomes over vietnam. he seems to be mad that hagel took issue with him about iraq and compared it to vietnam being the big blunder, which, of course, mccain and hagel both served in. you know, when mccain talks about iraq, all he wants to talk about is from the surge on. it's as if everything before that didn't happen and didn't count, and we can still debate whether the surge worked or not, but the bigger issue is whether iraq was as bad as vietnam, and he doesn't want to have that argument. >> here is mccain sinking his teeth into hagel's ankle here, and he w
. >> i don't know. >> when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blonder i blunds country since vietnam were you correct or incorrect, yes, or no? >> my reference to the surge being dangerous -- >> the question is were you right or wrong. that is a pretty straightforward question. i would leak the answer whether you are right or wrong and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no. >> why do you think that the iranian foreign ministry is strongly supports your nomination to be secretary of defense? >> i have a difficult enough time with american politics and senator i have no idea. >> do you think it is appropriate for the chief civilian leader of the u.s. military forces to agree with the statement that both the perception, quote and the reality is that the united states is, jet the world's bully. >> the didn't hear her say that by the way the united states. and i think my comment was it is irdevelop rant in good observation -- irdevelop rant and good observation. i don't think i said that i agree with it. >> as of this a
, political stability. >> earlier, we spoke with a foreign policy spokesman, one of angela merkel christian democrats, and we asked about what international security had to do with energy policy. >> country and a new chance for them because they would be a major decrease of the prices for energy in america. because of the shale gas and crude oil debate, this would change the geopolitical situation also in the middle east because not any longer setting arabia will be the field station for america. maybe this will change in 10 or 15 years. this is part of this conference. m staying with the energy sector, a u.s. oil giant, exxon mobil's, has posted 2012 earnings just shy of $45 billion. yes, that was billion. the second highest ever for a publicly held company, despite slight declines in its oil and gas business, the company improve its bottom line by about 6% compared to 2011. strong performance from exxon's refinery division helped drive the growth. the $45 billion mark is just a couple hundred million dollars shy of the all-time record set back in 2008 by -- you guessed it -- exxon. better
foreign-policy would be? xp did not go that far. he had three main parts aside from syria, issuing an offer and a warning to iran, and a warning if the us policy is not containment, but to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon and his offer is they are ready to have talks but the supreme leader needs to be serious about negotiations. that was one thing. another theme was a reset with russia and he made it clear there were differences with russian leadership. it clearly sounds like they will work together on and ad hoc transitional basis. with europe, they said the good news and the bad news is we are not going anywhere, reaffirming the commitment to europe. >> that is a reassuring message. melinda, thank you very much. john kerry has been sworn in as us secretary of state, replacing hillary clinton to my taking his at a small ceremony in washington, dc. he has been in public life for three decades and is the 68 secretary of state, and among his priorities would be removing troops from afghanistan and improving us relations with pakistan. french president francois hollande has
he is going to give his manifesto on what republican foreign policy should be. that's going to be next week on ronald reagan's birthday, rand paul. but, you know, it's fitting, because we're coming up on reagan's birthday. and did you hear about the horrible obama muslim marxist thing about his kenyan home? did you hear? >> this is one wall that probably shouldn't be torn down. this apartment building used to be the home of a young ronald reagan. it was denied landmark status, and the university of chicago is ready to demolish it. the university is also trying to become the site of president obama's presidential library. that's drawing strong concerns the university might turn president reagan's former house into a parking lot for an obama library. >> did you hear about that? chicago close ties with the obamas, all of them, tearing down ronald reagan's boyhood home in order to make a parking lot for barack obama's presidential library. did you hear? did you hear? see, here it is on drudge. reagan's home could become parking lot for obama library. here it is on something call
a nominee tries to disavow his past positions on virtually every foreign policy issues all at the same time it raises serious questions. >> if hagel is confirmed by a strict party vote, how will it affect his relationship with republicans in congress? >> it sticks that he went from being a loyal republican to somebody who frankly took a differently point of view. he didn't endorse president obama, but he traveled with him and now prepared to be his secretary of defense. they kind of recent the fact that they think he is going to the other side. that said when he is in the pentagon and controls the military in that capacity, they will have to deal with him and have the same interest in common. both parties want to keep the u.s. strong and safe and chuck hagel has been through worse. believe me, he has seen much more incoming than at that hearing. >> republican strategist, good to see you. thank you. >> good to see you. >> still ahead on the saturday afternoon, the latest on the scandal around the top u.s. senator. first, on this date, an announcement that led to the moment so many had been c
are the most impressive and smartest of all our foreign policy thinkers. and so i made that comment not too long ago, and someone said how could that be? why would the military guys be smarter? i said, well, if for no other reason, the same reason secretary gates gave the speech that he gave out in kansas on a lecture or series two months ago when he devoted his speech to the congress and the united states putting more resources in the state department, more resources in diplomacy, more resources in soft power. because he understands as secretary of defense or anyone who wears the uniform is burden is now on our soldiers. and we have overloaded the circuits. of we've asked our military to damn near do everything. well, we should never, ever put the military in that position. not only are they not capable of doing everything, they can't. they're human. and so consequently, we're seeing a great deterioration in the quality of our army and the marines, we're doing great damage to our fort structure. and i talk about that in the book. but soft power, how do we use all the instruments of our gov
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 91 (some duplicates have been removed)